.... or, perhaps in better terms, telling the banal visual expression from a photograph possessing a bountiful or more meaningful expression? By truth I mean mainly the latter, not some unattainable quality (I couldn't resist putting the OP title in the form of an alliteration). What is banal or trivial may be different for each of us, but many are probably of similar mind that a cliché image has a great tendency to be banal or trivial. One problem with human expressions (in street shooting, portraits, other) is that they can easily be considered less meaningful because we are all too familiar with them, that they are not unique. The same may be aplied to a series of images of well-known landscapes. But does this make them trivial? Another aspect is that the subject, whether architecture, landscape, streetscape or portrait, or some theme applying one of these features, may be more or less inviting to different persons. I have noted quite a different perception in this forum on the value of certain images to different persons. Often that difference is exploited or referenced indirectly in discussion of the images or a concept that the images seek to elaborate. The weight of the argument is often related to personal preferences in the perceptions of images. Are there some less subjective criteria that we use in discerning whether a photo is trivial or banal, as compared to one that is of a bountiful and/or original visual expression?